## Facts

- Julie Ann Clark, a Virginia resident and law school graduate, applied for admission to the Virginia bar and passed the bar examination.
- The Virginia Board of Bar Examiners required applicants to complete a Character and Fitness Questionnaire.
- Question 20(b) asked whether, within the past five years, the applicant had been “treated or counselled for any mental, emotional or nervous disorders,” preceded by a preamble stating the Board was concerned only with “severe” problems.
- If an applicant answered “yes,” follow-up Question 21 required detailed information about treatment, providers, and related matters.
- Clark had previously received treatment for recurrent depression and refused to answer Questions 20(b) and 21 because she believed they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- The Board allowed Clark to sit for the bar exam without answering the questions but, after she passed, refused to issue her license solely due to her nonresponse and asserted no other character-and-fitness concerns.
- Clark sued the Board under ADA Title II seeking admission and an order barring use of Question 20(b).

## Issues

1. Whether the Board’s Question 20(b), requiring disclosure of any mental-health treatment or counseling within the past five years, imposed an unlawful eligibility criterion under ADA Title II by screening out or tending to screen out individuals with mental disabilities.
2. Whether the Board demonstrated that this treatment-history inquiry was necessary to its licensing function of protecting the public and ensuring fitness to practice law.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Clark after a bench trial.
- The court held Question 20(b) was overbroad and violated ADA Title II because it operated as an impermissible eligibility criterion that screened out or tended to screen out individuals with disabilities.
- The court enjoined the Board from requiring future applicants to answer Question 20(b).
- Because the Board’s only basis for withholding Clark’s license was her refusal to answer the unlawful question, the Board’s action constituted prohibited discrimination under the ADA.

## Legal Principles

- A state bar examiner, as a public entity administering a licensing program, is subject to ADA Title II constraints on discriminatory eligibility criteria.
- Under Title II, a public entity may not impose eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities unless the criteria are shown to be necessary for the program or activity.
- A broad inquiry into mental-health treatment history, untethered to current impairment or conduct relevant to professional competence, can unlawfully burden applicants with disabilities and lacks sufficient fit with public-protection goals.
- Public-protection objectives may be pursued through less discriminatory methods, including questions focused on current functional limitations or conduct indicating unfitness, rather than diagnosis- or treatment-based screening.

## Conclusion

The court held that Virginia’s bar application question requiring disclosure of any recent mental-health treatment was an overbroad ADA-prohibited eligibility criterion and permanently barred the Board from requiring applicants to answer it.


Clark v. Va. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 880 F. Supp. 430 (E.D. Va. 1995)